Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, is the novel that influenced the formation of my political ideas more than any other book except the Bible. I have read it three times, and I am recommending that you read it. But know what you’re getting into.
Rand’s family escaped Russia and came to America in 1931 after her father’s pharmacy was confiscated by the Communist government. Early in life she became a severe critic of Marxism and its political offspring, socialism and communism.
Rand believed in the right of individuals, rather than the state, to determine the course of their own lives. She did not accept the collectivism of communism, which required the individual to devote his life to the needs of the whole society.
Left alone to decide what was best for him, she thought, man would make decisions that would profit all of society. She could not accept the Marxist maxim that government should take “from each according to ability and give to each according to need.”
To flesh out her plot, which is vaguely set in the 1950s in a dystopian America, Rand creates four main characters who have sacrificed to build industries that provide important products and employ thousands of people. Dagny Taggart is a railroad executive. Francisco d’Anconia operates copper mines. Hank Reardon is a producer of a miraculous metal alloy. All of them are hampered in their production by a government restrictions that demand that they produce less, give away more and employ sub-standard workers just because they “need” a salary.
Early in the novel, we find that a man who produced an engine that runs on static electricity and would have been of great value to the socialist state has disappeared and taken the secret of his invention with him. The question emerges, Who is John Galt?
The plot revolves on an interesting premise: What if the producers, who are necessary in a Marxist economy that “takes from the rich and gives to the poor,” stopped producing? What if those who are supporting the system, as the mythological Atlas was said to do for the world, stopped producing anything for the government to take from them? What if Atlas shrugged the world off his shoulders?
And Atlas shrugs. Taggart and Reardon give up their businesses. D’Anconia destroys his copper mines, and Galt has already disappeared. They plan to set up a new society where individual rights remain and initiative and achievement are still valued.
They leave what they call “the leeches” to struggle alone with no one to give them what they should be able to provide for themselves. They want the leeches to struggle to make themselves “equal” without the bleeding others dry.
This is a great simplification of the plot, but it gives you an idea. You get conflict and romance, but basically Rand created what is almost a parable to support her political and social ideas.
Now for the cautions:
First, this is a monster of a book that I’m suggesting you put under your reading lamp, 1168 pages. It will take awhile to read.
Rand’s characters are either all good or all bad. The characterizations have been criticized as “wooden and undeveloped,” but that’s the case with parables, which are written to make a point, not to show us real people.
Rand uses her characters as mouthpieces for her philosophy, so there are a number of long speeches.You can only get through them if you are interested in or agree with her philosophy and want to know the justifications.
The book was harshly criticized by Marxists, socialists and communists who didn’t want their philosophy exposed and reviled. As one friend told me when I mentioned it, “That is a horrible book!” So prepare to be criticized for reading it in this age of tolerance for human moral weakness and government intervention in all life.
This is not a Christian book. It preaches the right of man to make life choices unfettered by any diety. Of course, most of the romances and other fiction we read is also about living life without God, but we read those without complaint.
I do not agree with everything Rand preaches, especially her premise that man’s own happiness is the moral purpose of his life. I believe that a relationship with God is the purpose of life. But I agree that government is not to restrict my beliefs or force me to support others who will not work, contribute or think for themselves. Paul said, “Those who will not work, let them not eat.”
If you have the fortitude for a idealogical classic, give this novel your attention this summer.
